Recently we updated Visual Studio 2022 17.14.6 and the regression test reported errors. It turned out that atan implementation was changed resulting a different value for debug vs release builts with CPU's having AVX2. One can recreate this with the following values:
const double ax = 38.176459921094995;
const double ay = 15.964755390006060;
const double dblRotation = atan(ay/ax);
We had to relax the equality checks; even for deterministic calculations.
The std::wfstream is similar to std::fstream except it accepts wchar_t. However it does not write std::wchar_t characters to file. Suppose the following code:
std::wofstream ofs;
ofs.open(L"c:\\temp\\1.txt" , std::ios_base::out | std::ios_base::binary) ;
ofs.write(L"ABC", 3);
On the Windows platform this writes just single bytes characters to the file. The reason is that the locale bound to the file stream translates wchar_t to char. This can be fixed by using a custom locale which doesn't do this. This translation is quite unexpected behavior since the function prototypes are defined in terms of wchar_t. It is also different compared to the wchar_t string streams: std::wstringstream does write wchar_t strings unaffected.
This page was inspired by a YouTube comment of me where I stated that the C FILE api is less surprising. Of course there is always a clown who thinks better but probably doesn't know anything about above issue. With C stream I/O FILE and 'fwrite' the bytes are transferred to the file without interpretation and alteration.
Jason Turner goes a lengthy way of wrapping the C FILE api but using a wrapper class would probably be simpler:
class c_file
{
public:
c_file()
: m_fp(nullptr)
{
}
explicit c_file(const std::filesystem::path& rpth, const char* pszMode)
: m_fp(fopen(rpth.string().c_str(), pszMode))
{
}
~c_file()
{
if (m_fp)
{
fclose(m_fp);
}
}
c_file(const c_file&) = delete;
c_file(c_file&& rOther) noexcept
: m_fp(std::exchange(rOther.m_fp, nullptr))
{
}
c_file& operator=(const c_file&) = delete;
c_file& operator=(c_file&& rOther) noexcept
{
std::swap(m_fp, rOther.m_fp);
}
explicit operator bool() const
{
return m_fp;
}
size_t read(void* pBuffer, size_t size, size_t count)
{
return fread(pBuffer, size, count, m_fp);
}
size_t write(const void* pBuffer, size_t size, size_t count)
{
return fwrite(pBuffer, size, count, m_fp);
}
// etc.
private:
FILE* m_fp;
};
Linus Torvalds described C++ as being a horrible language. While C++ has its dark corners I choose it any day over any other language. Especially compared to C with its major security liabilities. There are some questionable aspects though:
Besides these aspects C++ misses out on an extended standard library. Especially compared to .NET or Java where many things are present in their extensive standard library. One need frequent 3th party libraries (e.g. Boost) for basic things. This could have been alleviated if there was a standard package manger like in Python with de facto libraries but again there isn't.
When using Boost.JSON I stumbled upon the following issue:
boost::json::value jv(1); // creates a number type
boost::json::value jv{1}; // creates an array type
The value object is something like this:
struct Value
{
Value(int);
Value(double);
Value(std::initializer_list<int>);
};
This gives the following invocations:
Value vl1(1); // invokes Value(int) constructor
Value vl2{1}; // invokes Value(std::initializer_list<int>); constructor
This is a know issue in C++. A programming language should be unambiguously be interpretable and the C++ had decided that in such case the initializer_list has precedence. Not sure if that's a good solution since the ambiguity may only appear when running under the debugger or at customer site. Personally I would require that double braces are used but the C++ committee has decided otherwise. The uniform initialization problem is still not solved.
C++20 has added the the ranges library. Basically it works on ranges instead of iterators but added some subtle constraints to some algorithms. For example consider the lower_bound algorithm:
#include <algorithm>
#include <utility>
using IntPair = std::pair<int, int>;
IntPair a[1];
auto it = std::lower_bound(std::cbegin(a), std::cend(a), 1, [](const IntPair& r, int n) { return r.first < n; });
The lower_bound function only expects an asymmetric functor implementing the order between container and search element. To spare on typing out the begin and end iterator one could think to use the ranges library:
auto it = std::ranges::lower_bound(a, 1, [](const IntPair& r, int n) { return r.first < n; });
This gives though a ton of mystic error messages on VStudio:
1>error C2672: 'operator __surrogate_func': no matching overloaded function found
1>error C7602: 'std::ranges::_Lower_bound_fn::operator ()': the associated constraints are not satisfied
1>message : see declaration of 'std::ranges::_Lower_bound_fn::operator ()'
It turns out that the ranges variant expect a functor with all less combinations defined:
struct OpLess
{
bool operator() (const int n1, int n2) const { return n1 < n2; };
bool operator() (const IntPair& r1, const IntPair& r2) const { return r1.first < r2.first; };
bool operator() (const IntPair& r, int n) const { return r.first < n; };
bool operator() (int n, const IntPair& r) const { return n < r.first; };
};
auto it = std::ranges::lower_bound(a, 1, OpLess{});
Side note: concepts supposed to give more clearer error messages but are cryptic as well.
std::shared_ptr is a C++ smart pointer who takes shared ownership of the pointee.
It solves some of the memory problems associated with the C language which are memory leaks; buffer overruns and dangling pointers. The first two can be solved by using std::vector; the first and last one by using std::shared_ptr. shared_ptr has though some sharp edges:
std::shared_ptr (i.e. A points to B; B points to A). The memory isn't released then. Solution is to use std::weak_ptr to break the cycle. Alternatively one can use a raw pointer to point back to the owner.std::shared_ptr's. Instead once a resource is assigned to a std::shared_ptr use the std::shared_ptr to share that resource.enabled_shared_from_this to hand out a std::shared_ptr of yourself. This fails in constructor because the std::shared_ptr structure is build after the constructor returns.
Garbage collectors don't suffer from these issues but the runtime price one pays for it is large. Also their non-deterministic destruction may another big hurdle to coop with.
The company I work for decided 5 years ago to switch to a more Agile / Scrum development method. A consultant promised the CEO that with this method we would be more effective and he used some bullshit use case found on internet.
Since then two major projects have failed due to the following reasons:
Not sure why the world has gone mad but our company was doing a lot better beforehand. A false fallacy is often used to compare this method with the waterfall method with rigid requirements once written down. However no company works that way.